New Mars Forums

I certainly agree with this statement...once a Martian settlement is established, the early settlers would have to be extremely cooperative with each other in order to promote a safe and controlled environment, including taking steps to prevent over-taxing of its resources, such as population control.

However, my take on this is that I don't think that the community would ever have to resort to firm limits on how many children each couple could have, like China.  For one thing, you have to have a fertility rate of 2.1 babies per woman just to maintain your current population, and this rate would have to pushed up to 3.5 or 4 children per couple to create any kind of exponential domestic growth curve.  In the early days of Martian settlement, I really don't see woman having this many babies enmasse.  The young colony would be made up of highly ambitious, hard-working and intelligent people such as scientists, engineers, researchers and a myriad of other specialists who would likely be working 12-14 hours a day on a continuous basis...having children would probably be quite low on their personal priority lists, especially in the first couple of decades or so, when there's still much to be learned on the effects of the low gravity on the growth and development of children...not to mention all the other risks and dangers of pregnancy in such a harsh and isolated environment.

But as the new settlement grows, having children will indeed become more common, and once the infrastructure is put into place (large, spacious domes, surplus-producing greenhouses, "unlimited" water and energy, etc) the fertility rate could very well rise above 2.1, creating "domestic" growth.  At this point, I think the young community would simply regulate the number of incoming immigrants from Earth to balance the increasing numbers of children being born on Mars.  I have little idea of what the "ideal" growth rate would be, but I'm thinking it might be somewhere between 5 and 10 percent every m-year...which would mean a LOT of kids would have to be born to exceed that kind of growth rate.  Not likely to happen.  Take a look at what's happening in many modern, industrialized societies here on Earth today...in some countries, the fertility rate has fallen to barely one baby per couple.  Even here in the U.S., the rate has been stuck at 2.1 for quite some time now...which means we depend on immigration for continued population growth.  I doubt that Mars would be dramatically different. 

Indeed, the rare family who has more than 3 kids would probably be looked on with respect and admiration, as they would help take up the slack for those too busy to have kids at all, not to mention homosexuals, people exposed to too much radiation, older people, etc.  It is very unlikely that the colony would ever have to resort to actual birth restrictions, and if things do become a bit too crowded, wouldn't you think some of the "excess" people would then go out and form other communities?  After all, that's what happened in North America..we started out on the eastern fringes of this vast continent, and expanded westward, even before things became overcrowded in the East.  Same thing on Mars...even if people are restricted to pressure-controlled environments...after all, building the first settlement will be the biggest hurtle..it'll all be downhill after that, due to duplication and ever-increasing efficiencies (like Ford did with the early automobiles.)  It's an awfully big, empty world out there, you know...

IMHO...it's very unlikely that laws or rules restricting the actual number of children one can have will ever come to pass on Mars...

B

Hey, I'm just curious on what you mean by this...you say the prices for food, cell phones and internet services are not accurate representations on what it costs..is it too high or too low?  Bush has just signed a horrible "farm" bill that subsidizes crop production..is this the type of thing you're referring to?

In any modern economy, costs and prices do have a tendency to become distorted; but most of the time, these inbalances do get "worked out" of the system, except when the government begins to meddle with it, such as agricultural supports.  However, my biggest worry concerning today's economic system is the fact that the US is highly dependent on cheap imports from 3rd world countries such as China..what happens when workers in those countries begin demanding "1st world" wages and benefits? 

On Mars, there will be no cheap labor pool to take advantage of, and the relationship between production costs (such as growing food and making clothing) will be very closely tied to what they will have to "pay" for it, whether it be a form of bartering or using plain old cash money.  There is no escaping the fact that human labor is needed to produce the things that we want and need...it's just that us lucky Americans have the advantage of a cheap, worldwide labor pool to get most of these things...something that will definately NOT exist on Mars...

B

O.K....Time for me to weigh in on this matter of monarchies...  First of all, I wholeheartly agree with Clark that monarchies do *suck*...reading your arguments in support of monarchy certainly makes me very, very proud to live in a representative democracy.

Personally, I find it *appalling* that anyone, especially a person of reasonable intelligence, would even advocate a monarchy in the 21st Century.  This is an antiquated system whose time has come and gone, and to tell you the truth, if I were to ever to live in a place (like Mars) that was based on a monarchial system, I would do everything in my power to see to it that the king/queen/czar be cut down.  For the most part, modern humans DO NOT need a "hero" leader like you suggest...they want to be in charge of their own lives; not to have someone sitting on a guilded throne telling them what to do...even if they aren't "bad."

Mars will be a place where people will be seeking their own destiny, and the idea that a monarchy could be put in place on humanities' second world is absurd at best, atrocious at worst.  Sure, there are flaws in every governmental system; this is why I'm an anarchist at heart, but a U.S.-style system of a republic certainly has been far superior to anything that Russia has ever had...  The United States enjoys a position of dominant world power and has the world's highest standard of living, as well as the world's most stable form of government.  Why would *anyone* suggest a revolution-prone system such as monarchy as opposed to what we have here in the US or Europe is beyond me.  Why not just stick with what works???  Russia has *never* enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity like the U.S. has...so using the old Russian system of czars in another place would represent the very pinnacle of human stupidity....

I close with this:  Down with any future king/queen/czar, and the PEOPLE will prevail, both here on Earth and on future Mars.  Freedom rules!!!!

Byron,

A proud, democracy-supporting American...

I haven't a clue of what the envelope of Martian dirigibles would be made of, but I'm certain it would be of a material that could withstand the extreme cold of Mars.  The dirigibles would probably have "sacs" contained within the overall envelope of the dirigible superstructure..the hydrogen gas within could be then be controlled like ballast on subs.  I also think that the hydrogen would be heated as well to give the craft increased bouyancy...perhaps this could solve the problem of the effects of the extreme temperature.

The main reason why I like the idea of dirigibles on Mars is that it would be a great way to overcome the problems of traveling by land in rovers, etc...can you imagine attempting to navigate across all those boulder fields on the Martian surface in a wheeled vehicle?  Airborne craft could bypass all the problems of land travel, and give the crew a spacious, mobile laboratory to carry out their research.  Hopefully the gondolas would have walls of glass so the occupants could get fantastic views of Mars from the air..can you imagine floating down Mariner at 2000 meters and looking up at the towering 6 kilometer high walls of Coprates Chasma??  Something I certainly wouldn't mind doing...

B

I think there will be a great deal more to this than just putting them into a simmed hab for a month prior to departure.  The ability of four or six people (I would hope six, as four people wouldn't be enough to carry out the myriad tasks facing them on Mars) to get along and work together as a harmonious, seamless unit will be *critical* in whether the entire mission is successful or not.

From what I heard about the Biosphere experiment, some of those people were about to go *crazy* with each other..and if they had to stay in there any longer than they did, big trouble would have resulted, imho.  It would have been like a high-octane "Survivor" episode..lol.  In all seriousness, however, this is something that needs to be avoided on the first Mars mission at all costs.  Remember, we're not writing a novel here..   Some of the steps that should be taken to mitigate this kind of risk include:  Pre-selection of all crew and back-up a full three years in advance of the mission, to fully establish everyone's working relationships with each other; allow the crew a great deal of input in drawing up the mission plans; allowing them input on the design and set-up of the hab to be used on Mars (more windows please!); and the group as a whole be constantly evaluated by psychiatric personnel during the 3-year run-up period to make certain there are no budding rivalries, jealousies, or anything else that could be a corrosive influence on the mission.  While it's true that people can "fake it" for the shrinks, I really don't think they'd be able to pull it off for three years straight..lol.

I'm sure there's still much more to this than the thoughts above...but the point is that going to Mars will be exceedingly difficult, not only from a physical standpoint, but from a pyschological one as well, the fact of which has the potential to become lost within the heady excitement of going to a whole new world...

B

You've got a good point there.  Mars as it is now does have very little weather compared to Earth, except for the occassional continent-sized dust storm.  The weather would indeed be very monotonous...mostly clear and very cold about 95% of the time..lol.

I live in Florida, and I do miss the seasons as well...we have summer, summer, and a short period when it resembles spring during the "winter" months...so I certainly know the feeling of samness in the weather...but at least we get rainstorms, something I would miss greatly if I lived on Mars.  However, the thing about being on Mars in the early days is the fact one will not be able to enjoy the outdoors like we can here on Earth...you'd never feel the wind in your hair, the natural smells of the outdoors, etc..to me, that would be the most difficult aspect of living on Mars. 

Another point:  I'm quite disappointed in the "standard" design of the prototype hab to be used for the Martian astronants...the windows on that thing are the size of portholes on an old-fashioned ocean liner.  I think they should have at least one expansive plate-glass window for the crew's enjoyment (1 meter by 2, maybe?), so they can at least see the beauty of the outdoors from inside the hab..I know this would be an engineer's nightmare, but being in touch with the Martian outdoors will be an important part of crew morale...more than the "experts" are willing to admit, IMHO...

B

I've had interest in this subject for a while, how the Social Security program will bring the U.S. to its knees in another generation or so.  The problem is that while the massive pension program has supposely "banked" surplus funds to pay future retirees...this is definately *NOT* what the government has been doing..instead, they've issued "IOU's" so the extra money can be spent now on things like bloated military programs and highway projects.  Around 2015, however, this game of financial musical chairs will come to a crashing end as there will no longer be any surplus funds generated by payroll taxes, and funds will instead have to be pulled from the general budget to pay back all those "IOU's," which already is in the *trillions* of dollars,

I seriously doubt the American public will stand for massive tax increases, considering how high they are now (I know Europeans pay more tax, but at least you guys get more benefits for the money than we do    ) and there could very well be a serious generational divide that would seriously impact the future health of this country.  Instead of higher taxes, I think all so-called "non-essential" spending will be phased out, the first of which will probably be the space program  :angry:   Then it'll be the highways, social programs, education..all that will fall by the wayside in order to meet the ever-increasing demands of the elderly for their "entitlements," the majority of which who won't even need that money to live on.  The Baby Boom generation will eventually overwelm the younger generations that have come after them (like me..lol) and I just don't see how just two and a half workers will be able to support each retiree by mid century...something will have to give at some point! 

Hopefully the whole antiquated concept of "retirement" will fall by the wayside on human-inhabited Mars.  There's no reason why people can't continue to keep working into their 70's, 80's, and even 90's, if the proper accomodations are made, such as reduced workloads, etc.  Most work is mental these days, as opposed to hard, physical labor like in the old days, and I think it's a terrible waste of accumulated wisdom and knowledge of millions upon millions of people to "retire" while their minds (and often their bodies as well) are still very much in prime condition.

Personally, I think the Social Security program should be phased out as quickly as reasonably possible, and just be limited to a simple welfare program to assist the very poor in their old age.  At the very least, I think the retirement age should be raised to 70 or 75 (just think about how much longer people are living these days.."retirement" really shouldn't consist of a third or more of one's total lifespan) *and* I think benefits should be eliminated for anyone making, let's say over $75,000 per year...as those people certainly don't need that government income.

But try telling that to millions of seniors, who will claim they've paid "their share" of pension taxes, and believe me, they will want that money.  So who knows what will happen??  In case they do raise taxes high enough to put me in the poorhouse, there's always the option of that one-way ticket to New Zealand.  (Now, that's a place to retire to...lol)

B

I don't see why mission planners couldn't allow for a *few* indulgences for special occasions, such as "rich" food and even alcohol.  Morale will be extremely important for a mission of such long duration, and having a party every now and then should be an important part of the mission profile.

Also, things such as music and games for the crew wouldn't be a bad thing, either...there's no reason why they couldn't blow off a bit of steam by doing karoke twice a week or whatever.

The *little* things do count for a lot, and it'd be foolish to ignore this side of human nature for a mission of this duration.

B

I would have to say that expecting a mixed-gender crew to go three whole years without any extra-curricular activity is rather unreasonable, and steps really should be taken to deal with the inevitable side of human nature to prevent a social "disaster" on such a long and dangerous mission.

To get around this problem, I would propose either having married couples on the mission, so everyone's sexual needs would be satisfied, -or- just stick with a one-gender mission, male or female.  While there might be some tension there, there shouldn't be any real problems in a single-gender environment (unless a homosexual is on board, so that's something else they would have to screen for.)  There's no getting around the chance that any two people might end up hating each other after being cooped up together for so long, but hopefully the risk of this happening would be quite low if proper psychological screening was implemented for the crew selection.

But putting several (uncoupled) people of mixed gender in very close quarters for such a long period of time (we're talking years here, people...) is a high-risk situation, IMHO, and I sincerely hope future mission planners will take this under consideration in the selection process of Mars astronants...

B

I definately agree with that sentiment...I really don't see chimps or any other creatures being genetically "programmed" to be our "slaves."  Machines are far easier to construct and maintain than living beings which would require a whole new infrastructure to keep them alive and functioning on Mars, and there would be none of the ethical issues to deal with. 

As far as A.I. goes, I just don't see machines progressing to the point of sentience, as robots can be made to perform increasingly complex and intricate tasks without anythng resembling a conscience, so there would be zero need to produce machines capable of higher thought.  A.I. will be just that..."artificial" intelligence...which is not even close to "real" intelligence.

Bottom line:  Maximum production at the least cost will be the #1 rule on Mars, and there will be no need to create a class of semi-autonomous beings to accomplish that objective.

B

Truthfully, I think the principle of "burial at sea" would apply to long space voyages.  Like the long ocean voyages of the past, there will really be no way to keep a body in storage on the ship, unless you could keep it frozen...but the ship will be so cramped in terms of storage space, I don't think it could be done for something as large as a human body. 

I'm certain the the brave astronants who make those early voyages will accept the very real risk of dying as "part of the job," and that would include being buried out in space.  And of course there would be an airlock..how else will the astronants get off the ship when they arrive at Mars...

B

Heck, they have electronic "pets" now...although these are just toys now, it'll be a short leap to making realistic-looking cats and dogs, and with the continuing rapid increases in computer power, they're probably not as far off as you think. 

I don't think robotic pets will be a complete subsitute for real pets, even on Mars...you'll never get that "warm, fuzzy" feeling as a you would from real, live animals.  I do like the idea of them being used for practical, labor-saving tasks, however..and I think they will play a valuable role in this regard on Mars, as human labor will be in very short supply.

B